Items on this page are archived in
the order of discovery . . .
Gibbels: BP Will Be Removed From Claims
David S Morgan
says in advance of the Obama’s speech to the nation this evening
about the government’s and BP’s response to the catastrophic oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico, White House press secretary Robert
confirmed that, one way or another, BP will no longer be directly
responsible for processing claims from those affected by the disaster.
So, in effect, Obama has heeded the call from the Communists at
International ANSWER and he will Seize BP’s assets.
on CBS’ "The Early Show" this morning on how Obama can prevail upon BP
to expedite or streamline the process for Gulf Coast businesses and
residents, Gibbels said, "The best way to prevail on BP is to take the
claims process away from BP.
"The president possesses the legal
authority and will use it to make this claims process independent, to
take it away from BP, and to ensure that those who have been harmed
economically have their claims processed quickly, efficiently,
transparently, and that they’re made whole again for the disaster caused
by BP," Gibbels said.
It would be interesting to see what laws
they cite for this "legal authority."
"So that’s going to
happen?" asked anchor Harry Smith.
"That will happen,"
replied. "The president will either legally compel them or come to
an agreement with BP to get out of the claims process [and] give that to
an independent entity, so that the people that have been damaged can get
the money that they deserve quickly." …
Whatever happened to that
quaint notion of due process? Has Mr. Obama declared martial law?
"The president understands the challenges, and tonight will
outline a plan moving forward to deal with the oil that’s leaked, to
respond to those that have been damaged economically as part of this in
the claims process, what has to happen going forward to make sure that
something like this never happens again, and to discuss with the
American people our approach towards reducing our dependence on oil and
other fossil fuels."
In other words, Obama is going to punish the
nation for BP’s spill by imposing a carbon tax which will destroy
whatever is still left of our economy.
But do notice how a tax is
always the Democrats’ solution to every problem.
Where Does Obama Get The Authority
Terence P. Jeffrey
says Obama’s speech
raises a question. Where does he get the authority to "inform" a
private company -- BP or any other -- that it must surrender its money?
In his first-ever address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night,
Barack Obama said he was going to "inform" the chairman of BP that he
must surrender the company’s money to an independent party that will
distribute it to people and businesses determined to have been harmed by
the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Obama’s declaration raises a
serious constitutional question about his authority: Where does Obama
get the lawful power to order any private-sector company -- BP or any
other -- that it must surrender its money? Should not courts and
normal legal proceedings determine who is responsible, who has been
harmed, and who owes what to whom in regards to the Gulf oil spill?
Leaving aside BP's relative popularity or lack of it today, if
Obama, on his own initiative, can tell a corporation to surrender its
money because he has determined its culpability in an oil spill, under
what other circumstances can Obama or any future American president tell
a corporation or a private citizen to surrender money?
rights do the stockholders in BP have to due process of law to protect
their property? The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says: "No
person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."
Does Obama think he can "inform"
persons and corporations to surrender or exchange their property without
due process of law?
Will Congress, the legislative branch of the
federal government, have a say before Obama takes unilateral executive
action in regard to how the government treats BP? Congress never
did give him legislative authority to have the federal government take
ownership of General Motors.
"Tomorrow," Obama said, "I will
meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside
whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business
owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness.
And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure
that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the
account must and will be administered by an independent third party."
Tomorrow there will also be serious and legitimate questions about
Executive authority under the U. S. Constitution that the White House
needs to answer and responsible members of Congress need to ask.
Obama Wants Government Control Of Media
says the chairman of Obama's Federal Trade Commission, Jon Leibowitz,
is at the epicenter of a quiet movement to subsidize news organizations,
a first step toward government control of the media.
In our book,
"2010: Take Back America -- a Battle Plan," we reported that he had
commissioned a study to examine plans for a federal subsidy for news
organizations. Among the measures under consideration are special
tax treatment, exemption from antitrust laws and changes in copyright
Now Leibowitz has begun to pounce. A May 24 working
paper on "reinventing" the media proposes that the government impose
fees on websites such as the Drudge Report that link to news websites,
or that it tax consumer electronics such as iPads, laptops, and Kindles.
Funds raised by these levies would be redistributed to traditional media
While Leibowitz distanced himself from the proposals for
the taxes, calling them "a terrible idea," his comments appear to be
related only to the levies proposed in the working paper. Nobody
is commenting on the other part of his proposal -- a subsidy for news
By now, the Obama MO should be clear to all.
As he has done with the banks, AIG, and the car companies, he extends
his left hand offering subsidies and then proffers his right laden with
Should the government follow through on Leibowitz's
ideas and enact special subsidies and tax breaks for news organizations,
it will induce a degree of journalistic dependence on the whims of
government not seen since the days when the early presidents bestowed
government advertising on favored periodicals.
Is it too
difficult to imagine that the Democrats might pass laws favoring news
organizations, only to question -- as former White House communications
director Anita Dunn did -- whether or not Fox News is a news
organization or an "arm of the Republican Party?"
We can see a
future in which news media are reluctant to be too partisan or
opinionated for fear that they would endanger their public subsidy.
Once such a subsidy is extended to news organizations, every company in
the business must have it. Otherwise, the competitive advantage
for the subsidized companies would prove too steep an obstacle to
In all the attention that has been given to the idea of
an Internet tax on news aggregation sites and on tech equipment -- trial
balloons that would obviously be shot down -- very little attention has
been focused on the expenditure side of the proposal -- the subsidy of
But The Wall Street Journal reported six
months ago that Leibowitz had commissioned a study to determine "whether
the government should aid struggling news organizations which are
suffering from a collapse in advertising revenues as the Internet upends
their centuries-old business model."
Among the steps under
consideration are changing "the way the industry is regulated, from
making news-gathering companies exempt from antitrust laws to granting
them special tax treatment to making changes to copyright laws."
These are exactly the kind of subsidies that could and would trigger
government oversight and control.
Look at how radio stations
squirm when their licenses are up for renewal before the FCC. We
can imagine news organizations pulling their punches in order not to
antagonize the hand that feeds them.
The Leibowitz study, and the
subsidy proposals that are likely to emerge from it, represent a
chilling threat to the First Amendment and to our civil liberties.
Above The Law
America’s growing antipathy to the Obama administration and its liberal
policies continues to befuddle the progressive rank and file. The
inherent goodness of the new nanny-state that Obama is creating is so
readily apparent to liberals that they are sure that the ever swelling
surge of anger directed toward big government must be about something
more sinister; latent racism, corporate conspiracies and Fox News are
the most popular villains. Progressives don’t appear able to
comprehend that conservatives and a growing number of independents
aren’t just upset about what is being done, it’s the how it’s being done
part that has the nation in such an uproar. Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar’s decision to go back to the well, or rather to turn his back on
the wells, by trying to impose a new version of an offshore drilling ban
is just the latest example of an administration that has decided it can
ignore the will of the people and rule of law.
witnessed the unabashed arrogance of the Obama administration when it
pushed through the health care bill, using any parliamentary trick it
could think of to accomplish its mission despite overwhelming,
deeply-felt opposition throughout the country. Obama’s
unwillingness to do take meaningful action to stem the tide of illegal
immigration has been disappointing, but Attorney General Eric Holder’s
decision to take Arizona to court because that state has stepped up to
do the job the federal government’s should have been doing is positively
infuriating. Many Democratic governors understand this and have
expressed concern that the administration’s pig-headed refusal to
understand the mood of the electorate regarding this hot-button issue
will ultimately result in disaster for their party come November.
Obama and his advisors have moved beyond the imperial presidency.
To call it the tyrannical presidency would be a little excessive, but
not by much. When Judge Martin Feldman overturned the
administration’s six month ban on deep-water drilling, he made it clear
that it was both unfair and illegal to punish an entire industry and
those who depend on it for their livelihood because of a single
accident. Undaunted, the administration appealed Feldman’s ruling,
only to be shot down once again. Given the fact that most of the
nation supports deepwater drilling, despite the disaster in the Gulf,
the fact that other countries can and will tap the riches to be found
under the sea floor and that two courts had ruled against a ban, one
might think it’s time to throw in the towel and concentrate on ways to
make deep-water drilling safer instead of trying to make it impossible.
Yet, this administration is tenacious if nothing else. Once again,
Barack Obama is doing his best to emulate Admiral David Farragut: damn
public opinion, damn the law -- full speed ahead!
Obama's "National Ocean Council" Power Grab
Cassandra Anderson says thirty states will be
encroached upon by Obama's Executive Order establishing the National
Ocean Council for control over America's oceans, coastlines and the
Great Lakes. Under this new council, states' coastal jurisdictions will
be subject to the United Nations' Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) in this UN
Agenda 21 program. America's oceans and coastlines will be broken
into 9 regions that include the North East, Mid-Atlantic, South
Atlantic, the Gulf Coast, West Coast, the Great Lakes, Alaska, the
Pacific Islands (including Hawaii) and the Caribbean.
the decades of difficulty that the collectivists have had trying to
ratify the Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST), Obama is sneaking it in through the
back door, by way of this Executive Order establishing the Council.
Because LOST is a treaty, Obama's Executive Order is not Constitutional
as treaty ratification requires 2/3 approval from the Senate.
Michael Shaw said that the Agenda 21 Convention on Biodiversity treaty
of 1992 failed to pass Congress so it was executed through soft law and
administratively on local levels, and Obama's Executive Order is a
similar soft law tactic to enact the LOST treaty.
In fact, our
Constitutional form of government is being completely destroyed because
buried in the CLEAR Act (HR 3534) there is a provision for a new council
to oversee the outer continental shelf -- it appears that this Regional
Outer Shelf Council will be part of the National Ocean Council.
This means that if Congress makes the CLEAR Act into law, then the
implementation of the UN Law Of Sea Treaty, as part of the National
Ocean Council's agenda, will be "ratified" in a convoluted and stealth
manner, in full opposition to the Constitution and its intent.
The excuse for this extreme action is because of the emergency in the
Gulf of Mexico. Obama and Congress have always had the legal and
military power to force BP Oil to take all necessary action to stop the
gusher and clean the oil spew. While there is evidence that the
problems in the Gulf have been a result of collusion and planned
incompetence, it begs the question, why in world should America's oceans
and resources be controlled by Obama appointees?
Scott at PowerLine blog
if ObamaCare is constitutional, we have experienced the dissolution of
limited government. If the government can, among other things,
command citizens to purchase health insurance of a prescribed shape and
size, you can bet it will be using this power in a variety of (other)
unpleasing ways in the future. It's just a matter of time.
As the Tea Party folks recognize, it's time to take a stand.
there has been remarkably little discussion of the constitutional
revision involved here. One wonders if we truly understand or
appreciate limited government and the Constitution anymore. They
are at best an afterthought in the debate over ObamaCare.
National Review published Charles Kesler's superb essay "The
Constitution, at last." A far more appropriate title for the essay
would have been "Whatever happened to the Constitution?" That
having been said, I want to bring this essay to your attention in
connection with my own post, "An old argument revisited."
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Bill McCollum says, in the words of our second
president: We are a government of laws, not of men. This key
principle, which places our Constitution above our leaders, set young
America apart from the governments of monarchical Europe.
Regrettably, Obama is endangering this venerable tradition by
deliberately and systematically seeking to expand executive power well
beyond its proper boundaries. In the process, he is trampling both
the constitutional authority of Congress and the sovereign rights of the
This bold power grab is directed at immigration, which is
predominantly a domestic-policy matter, where unilateral presidential
authority is inherently weak. Obama’s efforts appear to be driven
by crass political considerations, making them all the more
unprecedented and unfortunate.
The principles of separation of
powers and federalism comprise the foundation of America’s
constitutional structure. Separation of powers enables Congress to
play a dominant role in domestic affairs and the president to enjoy
robust authority in military and foreign affairs. Federalism
limits the authority of the federal government and allows the states to
wield ample police powers. The Obama administration’s immigration
policy provides a vivid example of blatant disregard for separation of
powers and federalism.
As its first order of business, the
administration canceled state and local law-enforcement programs
designed to help federal authorities arrest illegal aliens. Next,
it proceeded to rewrite federal immigration laws. A recently
leaked Department of Homeland Security memo describes a detailed plan
for back-door amnesty for illegal aliens; it explains how to enact
"meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action."
Finally, under White House direction, the Department of Justice has
challenged Arizona’s new immigration statute -- because Arizona actually
took existing federal immigration law seriously and decided to enforce
In the Arizona case, the Obama administration claims that
Obama’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs gives him the
power to control immigration enforcement within our borders, and that
this authority trumps any attempt by Arizona to enforce federal
immigration law. What is truly remarkable about this claim is that
the Arizona law is entirely consistent with federal statutory law.
The conflict arises because Obama has conspicuously chosen not to
enforce a federal immigration law, even though his first duty is to
"faithfully execute" the law.
says sorry, but I can't allow Health and Human Services Secretary
Kathleen Sebelius' statement that "we have a lot of re-education to do"
slip by without comment. It's amusing when avowed leftists don't
even recognize the Marxist buzzwords they're sputtering.
is attributing the public's vehement opposition to ObamaCare to
"misinformation given on a 24/7 basis. ... Unfortunately," she
said, "there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in (the
ObamaCare law) and what isn't." She is especially peeved about the
vulnerability of seniors, who "have been a target of a lot of the
misinformation." (The target of Obama's misinformation, perhaps.)
The most remarkable thing is that Sebelius didn't actually use the
term "re-education" accidentally, or out of school. Perhaps
unwittingly, she's quite comfortable using a term long associated with
tyrannical regimes. As one of Obama's chief lieutenants, she
obviously believes this administration knows better than the public what
is good for them.
Indeed, one of the ongoing ironies of
liberalism is that it holds itself out as open-minded, democratic and
representative of the common man, when it is more comfortable dictating
to and indoctrinating the masses. Just look at our universities
alone if you need quick, verifiable proof. But let's consider a
few other examples of this administration's employing that mindset.
When an audience member at a forum at the Kennedy School of
Government told Obama adviser and close confidant Valerie Jarrett that
Obama's ideas are too complex to be digested by the unwashed, she didn't
protest. The participant affectionately proposed that the White
House express its ideas in an easier-to-comprehend form, such as
printing simple booklets -- I assume replete with large print and
Unflinching, Jarrett agreed it was a jolly
idea. "Everyone understood hope and change," she said (NO, THEY
DIDN'T), because "they were simple. ... Part of our challenge is
to find a very simple way of communicating. ... When I first got
here, people kept talking about 'cloture' and 'reconciliation' and
'people don't know what that's talking about.'" Then, the kicker,
"There's nobody more self-critical than President Obama. Part of
the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately."
How lonely it must be for these people at their perch high above the
Then there's Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who, in
gloating that he is part of a "transformational administration," intends
to "coerce people out of their cars." Does it bother him that he's
basically using government to dictate to people how they should behave?
Are you kidding? When asked about such unseemly government
intrusion, he cavalierly replied, "About everything we do around here is
government intrusion in people's lives." He continued, "I think we
can change people's behavior."
Then there is Obama himself.
After his policy agenda was soundly repudiated with the victory of Scott
Brown in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, instead of showing
contrition or promising to modify ObamaCare to more closely align with
the people's will, he became further entrenched. He said, "I want
everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed." He also
said he just hadn't talked enough about his plan, which left me
wondering where "Saturday Night Live's" writers were.
administration, what we're seeing is not just an arrogant contempt for
the cognitive ability and will of the American people, but also a
cynical determination to manipulate its will through indoctrination,
selective suppression of speech, and trickery.
czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a Harvard Law Review article advocating
"cognitive infiltration," which amounts to the government's use of phony
websites and 501(c)(3) groups to masquerade as independent supporters of
government policies and trolling opposing websites to pepper them with
pro-administration posts. In this way, the government can
manipulate public opinion surreptitiously, all for the greater societal
good, as defined by Obama/Sunstein liberals. Even certain fellow
liberal journalists have described this suggestion as "truly
And let's not forget recent Obama Supreme Court
appointee Elena Kagan's advocating the government's "unskewing" of
speech that she and her fellow liberals believe harmful, i.e.,
I truly hope people understand that Kathleen
Sebelius' comment was neither offhanded nor out of line with the
administration's MO; it was right in line with the administration's
Orwellian approach to top-down, autocratic governance.
Obama’s Post-Midterm Strategy
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
say that just in case you
have not heard the news, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are
gearing up for the mother of all battles just after the election.
They know that the American people are about to go to the polls and hand
them a massive repudiation of their left-wing agenda, and they’re not
Refusing to accept defeat, these three are planning a
counterattack. Instead of taking to heart the unmistakable message
of the American people, they’re moving, full steam ahead, in the
Digging in with unprecedented and arrogant
defiance, they’ve planned a legislative blitzkrieg during the coming
lame-duck session of Congress in order to shove as much of their radical
agenda, as humanly possible, down your throat before the new Congressmen
and Senators can be sworn into office.
Barack Obama says there’s
going to be "hand-to-hand combat." As David Karki with The North
Star National writes: "He [Obama] is not going to make like President
Clinton in 1995 and move to the center to survive. He will force
upon us everything else he can, whatever way he has to."
it in the words of columnist Charles Krauthammer: "How then to prevent a
runaway lame-duck Congress? Bring the issue up now -- applying the
check-and-balance of the people’s will before it disappears the morning
after Election Day."
Can it happen? You better believe it.
Krauthammer cautions: "They could then vote for anything -- including
measures they today shun as the midterms approach and their seats are
threatened -- because they would have nothing to lose. They would
be unemployed. And playing along with Obama might even brighten
the prospects for, say, an ambassadorship to a sunny Caribbean isle."
As scribe Ben Johnson points out, the threat doesn’t end even with
the lame-duck session: "All indications are, if Obama cannot get his
legislative agenda enacted by the lame-duck Congress, he will impose it
In an L.A. Times piece Peter Nicholas and Christi
Parsons make clear the "fresh strategy" borders on government by
executive fiat. It begins, "As President Obama remakes his senior
staff, he is also shaping a new approach for the second half of his
term: to advance his agenda through executive actions he can take on his
own, rather than pushing plans through an increasingly hostile
This rule by edict is confirmed by Obama strategist
David Axelrod, who said, "It’s fair to say that the next phase is going
to be less about legislative action than it is about managing the change
that we’ve brought."
The L.A. Times continues:"So the best arena
for Obama to execute his plans may be his own branch of government.
That means more executive orders, more use of the bully pulpit, and more
deployment of his ample regulatory powers and the wide-ranging
rulemaking authority of his Cabinet members."
Parsons note how the president has replaced the few appointees with ties
to Capitol Hill in place of Chicago insiders. They specifically
state the "the Environmental Protection Agency is determined to use its
regulatory power…to begin lowering [carbon] emissions, in the absence of
The Associated Press also reported, "The
Obama administration says it would prefer that Congress enact climate
change legislation, but has used the threat of EPA regulations to goad
lawmakers into action."
Congressional Republicans have accurately
called the regulations "job-killers," and Democratic Senator Jay
Rockefeller of West Virginia has sponsored a two-year freeze on certain
EPA regulations. Now it looks as though Obama will ignore
Rockefeller, the Republicans, and the will of the voters.
than triangulate as Bill Clinton successfully did or take an electoral
chastening, Obama plans to ram his agenda down the American people’s
throats "by any means necessary."
Podesta: Obama Can Use Armed Forces To
Enforce Progressive Agenda
is reporting that the liberal Center for American Progress doesn’t
believe significant GOP gains in the House and Senate should stop Obama
from implementing more of his polices. The group released a report
Tuesday suggesting ways he can bypass Congress to accomplish a
progressive agenda, and it cites Obama’s power as [alleged]
commander-in-chief to make its point.
"I think most of the
conversation since the election has been about how President Obama
adjusts to the new situation on Capitol Hill," Center for American
Progress head and former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta told
the Daily Caller. "While that’s an important conversation, it
simply ignores the president’s ability to use all levels of his power
and authority to move the country forward."
How does one "move
the country forward?" In the center’s report, Podesta
explains that Obama can use executive orders, rulemaking, and even
the armed forces "to accomplish important change" and that such means
"should not be underestimated."
What exactly does Podesta think
Obama should use such powers to "accomplish?" Among others, the
report suggests "job creation," "quality affordable health care,"
"sustainable security," and "a clean energy future."
cites specific goals such as mitigating the effects of the military’s
"Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, supporting a Palestinian state, and
reducing greenhouse gasses by 17 percent by 2020.
Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant
authority to make and implement policy," Podesta writes. "Congressional
gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still."
Related:Trevor Loudon has found a new
Degrees of George Soros." It was founded
4 days ago. Currently they have 94 pages and are creating more as
he writes. The idea is that you go to the site, type in a name, that
person's page will come up with a brief bio, and the number degrees of
separation between the named person and the man with the money, George
Soros. The producers of the website explain:
"Six Degrees of George Soros is a
non-partisan web search game which shows the connections between
Soros and the rest of the progressive machine. Progressive/Liberals/Democrats can use this information to ease
their minds in knowing George Soros’ influence is everywhere. Conservatives/Tea Party Patriots/Republicans can use this
information to freak out by knowing George Soros’ influence is
The website is including
individuals and organizations -- backing up much of their research with
articles fromKeyWiki-- the ever-expanding encyclopedia on the covert
side of U.S. and Global politics. They haven't got a whole lot of
connections done yet, butcheck backfrom time to time for a play with the nifty search
tool on their website.
Frustrating But Necessary
said today he sympathizes with passenger complaints about aggressive
body pat-downs at airports, but his counter-terrorism aides say they are
necessary to guard against hidden explosives.
and security is a "tough situation," Obama told reporters at a news
conference following the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal.
the most frustrating aspects of this fight against terrorism is that it
has created a whole security apparatus around us that causes a huge
inconvenience for all of us," Obama said.
violating the constitutional rights of 99.9% of the flying public,
because he refuses to psychology (not racial) profile the .1% of people
who are a threat.
what's with the, "...huge inconvenience for all of us," crap?
Obama doesn't have to endure this humiliation.
philosophy of this administration is, "You never want a serious
crisis to go to waste."
Obama is using this "crisis" to
eliminate your constitutional rights and further impose his brand of
fascism on the American People.
Profile! And leave Americans alone.
Related:CAIR: TSA Can Only Pat Down
Muslim Women’s Head, Neck
You Do Have a Messaging Problem, When Your
Message Is Sheer Arrogance
says the latest attempt at rationalization from our friends on the
left is that their devastating electoral rebuke is the result of "bad
messaging." In other words, Barack Obama, the man who evoked
hosannas as the most eloquent and effective communicator since FDR, if
not Lincoln (if not Jesus Christ and/or Julius Caesar), was a victim of
his own unfortunate tongue-tiedness. If only he could have gotten
out his message of hope and change, his dwindling admirers lament, we
could have kept marching toward the New Jerusalem of social justice and
The subtext of such remarks, of course, is
that we, the lumpen bozos, are too dense to appreciate the brilliance
and moral superiority of the vanguard elite who bring us, out of the
goodness of their hearts, "progressive" policies. Leaving that
problematic idea aside for a moment, it should be noted that the
Democrats have actually begun to get a glimmer of a hint of a clue when
they say they have a messaging problem. That’s because you really
do have a problem when the main thing you communicate is arrogance.
The latest proof of this is soon-to-be-ex-Speaker Pelosi’s act of
noblesse oblige: She’s determined to keep leading (and pushing) the
congressional Democrats off a cliff, thus helping preserve (to the
Republicans’ glee) a constant reminder of the three amigos of the
Dempocalypse: Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. How to explain such a
comically bone-headed move? Simple: It’s the very essence of
It’s the same arrogance that withheld what we wanted
(a growth-friendly government) while giving us what we didn’t want -- a
"stimulus" that mainly transferred money to unionized public workers
(and thus back to the Democrats themselves via the dues siphon), a
"cap-and-tax" bill, and a government takeover of Detroit, student loans,
and health care. And that congratulated itself at every turn.
And the same arrogance that sees us as small-minded wretches who can’t
understand all this beneficence. Such overweening arrogance is a
byproduct of delusion.
And Pelosi actually does see herself as an
avatar of progressive enlightenment. For our own good, mind you,
she’s determined to drag us, kicking and screaming, toward
cradle-to-grave bliss. As she no doubt firmly believes, the work
of improving benighted humanity must continue, and she’s just the one to
do it. Could there be a better example of deluded arrogance?
Well, how about Barack "The Shining One" Obama? When he said,
"We are the ones we’ve been waiting for," wasn’t he really saying, "I’m
the one you’ve been waiting for?" He sold himself as the messiah
not only of a weary United States but of a world weary of the United
States back in ’08, when so many voters seemed to be guzzling Kool-Aid.
And now, his delusions of grandeur having fallen around his ears, he has
the epic gall to tell us that we’re the problem! If only we could
have put aside our petty fears and focused on his sheer epoch-making
magnitude, he’d still have both houses of Congress. (And a virtual
lock on creating a more radical federal judiciary to boot.) If
there were a Richter scale for self-regard, he’d drive the cursor off
Compounding their arrogance is the fact that the
Democrats have largely become the party of people fundamentally ashamed,
in some sense, of being Americans. Affluent tri-coastal
Obama-Pelosi liberals, with their high IQs, advanced degrees, and jobs
that often seem, at least to them, to owe nothing to the grubby world of
commerce, manufacturing, and marketing, are desperate to create an
America that won’t embarrass the Harvard faculty. Of course, that
would imply that they don’t think very much of the country most
Americans are actually quite fond of, a stance that could be expected to
have harsh repercussions in a democracy. But they see that as our
problem, not theirs.
Just as the ancient Croesus is still
associated with unimaginable wealth and Pyrrhus with unaffordable
victory, so may Obama be associated, down the ages, with unfathomable
Defying The Will Of The People
The Washington Examiner
says sitting presidents whose agendas are soundly rejected by voters
in midterm congressional elections have two options: They can either
accommodate the new political reality, as President Clinton did after
1994; or they can use bureaucratic edicts to advance their unpopular
programs, as Obama is clearly doing now.
Given the historic
drubbing his party just suffered at the polls, Obama's defiant strategy
may prevent a second term for the man who began his first buoyed by an
outpouring of good will.
Predictably, Obama's regulatory
imperialism focuses on labor and environmental issues, as Big Green
activists and labor unions, especially those representing government
workers, are the core of support for the Democratic president and his
At the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, for example, Administrator Lisa Jackson is moving forward with a
massive new program to subject the entire U.S. economy to an anti-global
warming regulatory straitjacket aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
Obama warned Congress last year that EPA would do this if the
legislature failed to enact an Obama-supported version of cap and trade.
Cap and trade passed the House in 2009 but never got out of the Senate
because of intense public opposition, especially in energy-rich states
like West Virginia. Now Jackson is following through on Obama's
At the Department of Labor, Secretary Hilda Solis wasted
no time after taking office last year in gutting long-standing rules
requiring unions to disclose important details about how they spend
members' dues. Now, Patricia Smith, Obama's Labor Department
solicitor general, is working with Solis to implement an unprecedented
new enforcement directive designed to put businesses at the mercy of
union bosses. The directive provides, according to the Wall Street
Journal's John Fund, for aggressive use of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration to compel business cooperation through "shaming"
and to "engage in enterprise-wide enforcement."
The rest of the
bureaucratic blitzkrieg will be carried out by Smith's eager staff of
400 labor lawyers. Nathan Mehrens, Americans for Limited
Government general counsel, says their agenda includes:
• A focus
on "cases against employers in priority industries."
• Plans to "litigate cases that
cut across regions."
to "identify and pursue test cases" to "challenge legal principles
that impede worker protections; successful challenges will advance
workers' rights, as will successful enunciation of new
"in greater use of injunctive relief."
Meanwhile, as Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wrote in
last Friday's Examiner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing the
lame-duck Congress to pass his Public Safety Employer-Employee
Cooperation Act, a laughably misnamed measure that will force public
employee unions on all local and state police, fire and emergency
medical technicians. Obama supports Reid's bill, but its passage
is far from assured. Nobody will be surprised if, shortly after
the Reid proposal fails on Capitol Hill, Obama unveils a new regulatory
gambit to achieve the same end.
Not Triangulation But Regulation
Quin Hillyer says Obama laid down the marker,
in early October. His approach to new Republican strength on
Capitol Hill, he said, will be nothing but "hand-to-hand combat."
The combat, however, may not take the form of traditional legislative
battles. Again and again, news stories in the fall cited Obama
officials saying blandly that they will "use executive authority when
blocked by Congress." None of the reports seemed to find these
statements remarkable. Yet if officials in the Reagan or Bush
administrations had spoken that way, Newsweek would have been warning of
"an imperial presidency" and the New York Times would be
hyperventilating about a proto-dictatorship. Yet Republican teams'
inclinations run to less regulation rather than more, and the Obama
regime favors executive actions far more likely to limit freedom and
seriously intrude on daily American life.
Indeed, the Obama
team's disdain for small-r republican norms is breathtaking. Even
when enjoying huge Democratic congressional majorities, Obama already
had pushed rule-by-administrative-fiat to a stunning degree. What
awaits, when Obama sees no chance of legislative success, is sure to be
an audacious expansion of claimed executive powers -- unaccountable,
unlimited, and quite arguably unconstitutional. (Whether the
courts recognize it as unconstitutional will be a close call, based on
how effective Republican senators are at blocking Obama from seeding
federal courts with radical leftists.)
It's not only
conservatives who recognize this administration's aggressiveness.
OMB Watch, a respected but decidedly left-leaning nonprofit that tracks
regulatory affairs full time, quite approvingly reported this in
September: "In stark contrast to the George W. Bush administration, the
Obama administration… has been far more active in pursuing its
rulemaking responsibilities." And: "[Environmental Protection
Agency] Administrator Lisa Jackson...has set an active agenda.… At
the Department of Labor, [there have been] efforts to jumpstart a
rulemaking engine…." The NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration] engaged in "a minor surge of rulemaking." And so
No wonder an October 26 report by the Heritage Foundation
succinctly concluded that "the burden of regulation on Americans
increased at an alarming rate in fiscal year 2010. Based on data
from the Government Accountability Office, an unprecedented 43 major new
regulations were imposed by Washington. And based on reports from
government regulators themselves, the total cost of these rules topped
$26.5 billion, far more than any other year for which records are
Those costs are just for the new rules.
Overall, as Clyde Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
(CEI) reported, "a very rough extrapolation from an evaluation of the
federal regulatory enterprise by economist Mark Crain estimates that
annual regulatory compliance costs hit $1.187 trillion in 2009.…
Regulatory costs are equivalent to 63 percent of all 2007 corporate
pretax profits of $1.89 trillion.… Regulatory costs exceed
estimated 2009 individual income taxes of $953 billion by 25 percent."
It's all so overwhelming, in fact that U.S. Chamber of Commerce
president Thomas Donohue in a recent column called it "a regulatory
Of course, not every regulation is more harmful than
helpful, and not every new rule is an abuse of power. But when
bureaucrats consistently push to and beyond the outer limits of what
Congress might possibly have intended, and when an administration
implements by fiat what Congress repeatedly has considered and refused
to pass, the collective diminution of freedom becomes alarming.
"This administration is unique in the scope of EPA's overreach," said
Rosario Palmieri, a vice president at the National Association of
Manufacturers. "For example, the previous administration finalized
a rule on a new ozone standard that was extremely costly. This
administration re-opened the rule and decided to make it even more
stringent -- unnecessarily so -- and a new study we've commissioned says
the new, more stringent ozone rule will cost us 7.3 million jobs by
With so many regulatory abuses occurring on so many
fronts, it's hard to pick just a few to focus on.
here for some of the most egregious (some of them by
quasi-independent agencies, but controlled by Obama appointees), both
already enacted and/or pending . . .
Tyranny By Decree
Robert Knight says that over the past year, it
has become obvious that what leftists cannot win at the ballot box, they
will accomplish via bureaucratic dictate. After the U.S. Senate in
2009 rejected the massive cap-and-tax scheme on carbon credits, the
Obama administration rode to the rescue of global-warming fanatics.
On Dec. 7, 2009, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator
Lisa P. Jackson issued a ruling that the EPA would begin regulating five
"anthropogenic" (man-made) greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide,
the air we exhale. The EPA based its finding on research from the
now discredited U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and rejected at least 10 petitions for reconsideration.
EPA is now preparing to hound power plants and refineries by drafting
carbon-emissions limits by July 2011, with a final rule due by May 2012.
Never mind the faltering U.S. economy and China's growing economic
power. The greenhouse gods must be appeased.
Not to be
outdone, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in December began
regulating the Internet. Ignoring a recent court decision and
Congress' pointed refusal to grant the FCC this power, the
Democrat-dominated body simply voted 3-2 on Dec. 21 (the darkest day of
the year) to adopt "net neutrality" rules.
They stopped just
short of redefining the Internet as a telecommunication carrier, much
like telephone services. But the FCC's move puts the federal
government in a position to begin meddling with content, something the
left has salivated over ever since Obama began stacking the FCC staff
with veterans of Marxist Robert McChesney's Free Press think tank and
the far-left Center for American Progress.
Finally, the dreaded
"death panels" are back. Recall that on Christmas Eve 2009, Nevada
Democratic Sen. Harry Reid's U.S. Senate rammed through the national
health care system takeover. They ignored public opposition and
mocked the idea that federal bureaucrats would institute end-of-life
counseling. But, in deference to the public's growing alarm, they
took out Section 1233.
It was a bait-and-switch. A year
later, on Christmas Day 2010, the New York Times broke the story that
Donald Berwick, Obama's unvetted czar who heads the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, issued a rule to pay doctors for end-of-life
counseling. That was the essence of Section 1233. The Times
acknowledged that the counseling "may include advance directives to
forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment." Exactly.
Jerry McConnell says this country is becoming
one big pot for our usurper president and imminent dictator. He
shows his ignorance and unfamiliarity with the United States
Constitution when he starts telling state Governors how to run their
provinces which THEY were duly elected to govern.
This man who
stole his way into the highest office in this land is either the most
brazen, or the most stupid, or perhaps equal parts of each, iconoclast
or rule breaker.
His position and statements against the elected
authority of the Governor of the State of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, are a
violation of states’ rights and the Constitution and are absolutely out
of order; a brazen attempt to coddle labor unions as payback for the
many millions of dollars of their members’ dues money that they used to
get this charlatan elected in 2008.
Unions have outlived their
usefulness and have become rotten and corrupt to the core by stealing
the dues money their members pay for their illicit activities not the
least of which is currying favor with highly elected officials in return
for favorable assistance from those officials to gain added advantages
in the union workplace through strong-arm and illegal tactics.
Just one look at the Black Panthers menacing presence at the voting
polls in Philadelphia recently is enough to know where these cretins are
coming from. They want total control over all of America’s
workers, including the places of business in which they work. And
they’ll say or do anything to make it possible.
arrogance, the usurper president of the United States has accused
Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker, of unleashing "an assault"
on unions by pressing legislation that would end collective bargaining
rights for public employees and sharply increase their health care and
pension payments, according to a February 18, 2011 FoxNews.com online
This double talking, conniving, deceiver is falsely
accusing the recently elected state governor of "assaulting" unions "by
pressing legislation that would end collective bargaining rights for
public employees" just by having the public employees increase their
health care and pension payments. Wisconsin is not on an island
where they pay insignificantly as their share for these benefits.
In private industries, the employees share of these costs are
considerably higher than for those on the public payrolls. But
Obama, in deference to his friends in the union leadership roles, tries
to pretend otherwise.
Obama Assaults Democracy By Rejecting
Does the "Will of the People" matter when
government is run by a cadre of demigods? After all, is it really
immoral to force Americans to do the good and avoid the bad?
Contra, one can argue the very cornerstone of US constitutional theory
is summed up in the doctrine of Consent of the Governed, since without
acknowledging the popular will, every other act by government is
tyranny. Yet, former constitutional instructor Barack Obama
constantly ignores and even flouts this principle in action.
Remember the Declaration’s immortal words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed…
In ignoring America’s convictions, the current
administration forfeits legitimacy, because each act done against
consent furthers bitter reaction to non-representational government.
For example, 75% of Americans want ObamaCare amended. Yet the
liberals in power treat us as children. Such a posture is an
inversion of historic European Natural Law doctrines of self-government.
Does Obama believe himself so wise to want all rights of the people
vested in him for safe-keeping? Hasn’t this idea been attempted
already in the USSR?
by Kelly O'Connell, examines "Obama and the Consent of the Governed"
Obama In Open Defiance Of Courts And
Robert Laurie says that last May, after
millions of barrels of oil had been pumped into the ocean, Barack Obama
issued an order to halt all U.S. deep sea drilling in the Gulf of
Mexico. Immediately, constitutionalists began to rail against the
moratorium, which appeared to be a severe abuse of Presidential
authority -- a quick grab for powers that the commander in chief simply
doesn’t wield. The courts agreed, and on June 22, an injunction
was issued by U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman, who argued that
Obama’s directive was "overly broad."
A few hours after their
defeat, U.S. Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar issued a statement
stating that the Obama administration would be presenting a "new order
in the coming days that eliminates any doubt that a moratorium is
needed, appropriate, and within our authorities."
drilling ban was enacted last July, only to be rescinded in October --
before Judge Feldman could rule on it. Since then, the government
has used a cadre of regulators to deny drilling and enforce a de facto
ban. In fact the government has not issued a single drilling
permit in the last 9 months.
Two weeks ago, Judge Feldman found
the Obama administration in contempt of court.
"Each step the
government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary
injunction showcases its defiance," Feldman ruled. "Such
dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second
blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the
national importance of this case, provides this court with clear and
convincing evidence of the government’s contempt."
administration has remained silent on the issue but, tellingly, their
refusal to grant permits has not wavered.
This pattern is
repeating itself in regards to Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare
overhaul. First, in December, U.S District Judge Henry E. Hudson
determined that ObamaCare’s individual mandate was unconstitutional --
though he angered conservatives by refusing to extend his ruling to the
entire bill. A month later, however, Florida U.S. District Judge,
Roger Vinson, did exactly that.
According to the Florida ruling,
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable,
the entire act must be declared void." Vinson went on to say that
there was no need to issue an injunction against implementing the law
since it’s illegal for the government to enforce an unconstitutional law
in the first place.
"There is a long-standing presumption that
officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by
the court, Vinson wrote in his judgment. "As a result, the
declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.
There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply
here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and
separate injunctive relief is not necessary."
Political Junkie Too
says it's time for Wisconsin Gov. Walker to take Obama to federal
court on the grounds that Obama is violating Article IV of the US
Constitution by leading the insurrection in Wisconsin.
The United States shall guarantee to every
State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be
convened) against domestic Violence.
Obama is openly working to undermine the Republican
Form of Government in Wisconsin by blocking the state's legislative
process, essentially attacking it by using its apparatus against itself.
He is effectively supporting the overthrow of the newly elected
government and legislative process in Wisconsin by ignoring the
Wisconsin State Constitution, just as he is ignoring the United States
Obama, and his henchmen should be blocked and
restrained from approaching Wisconsin legislators on the grounds that it
violates the federal government's Article IV requirement to
"guarantee... a Republican Form of Government" in Wisconsin.
Obama Goes Too Far By Mobilizing Opposition
Kyle Wingfield says there are many lessons to
be learned from the protests and outright abdication of duty by public
labor unions and Democrats (but I repeat myself) in Wisconsin. One
of them is that there can no longer be any doubts that Obama has radical
ideas about the proper balance and relationship between the federal and
From the Washington Post:
Obama thrust himself and his political operation this week into
Wisconsin’s broiling budget battle, mobilizing opposition Thursday
to a Republican bill that would curb public-worker benefits and
planning similar protests in other state capitals.
accused Scott Walker, the state’s new Republican governor, of
unleashing an "assault" on unions in pushing emergency legislation
that would change future collective-bargaining agreements that
affect most public employees, including teachers.
president’s political machine worked in close coordination Thursday
with state and national union officials to get thousands of
protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations
in other state capitals.
Their efforts began to spread, as
thousands of labor supporters turned out for a hearing in Columbus,
Ohio, to protest a measure from Gov. John Kasich (R) that would cut
By the end of the day,
Democratic Party officials were organizing additional demonstrations
in Ohio and Indiana, where an effort is underway to trim benefits
for public workers. Some union activists predicted similar
protests in Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Let me make my position perfectly clear: The president of
the United States has no business whatsoever interfering, especially by
using his campaign apparatus, with a state government’s dealings with
No. Business. Whatsoever.
eagerness to jump into the fray in Madison, like his ill-advised wading
into the dispute over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates
two summers ago, not only betrays his disturbing instinct to think
nothing is beyond the bounds of his office. It actually demeans
the office itself.
Related:Obama's Organizing for America's Facebook page
Related:The CPUSA describes union action as "an historic
action by workers."
Has Obama Crossed the Line?
says, and so it begins. As Islamist insurrections erupt across
the world, Obama incites a battle at home between producers and
parasites that his union supporters parallel with the struggle of the
Egyptian people. Interjecting himself into the sovereign matters
of state governments Obama moved to directly violate the expressed will
of the Wisconsin People by actively mobilizing his political
organization to affect contractual relationships between the state and
its employees, and supporting the shut down of the Wisconsin state
government -- a direct violation of his oath of office. Ignited by
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s proposal to limit public sector
collective bargaining rights for benefits by requiring union members to
contribute 12.6% of their income towards their healthcare plans and 5.8%
towards their pension, DNC Chairman Timothy M. Kaine worked in close
coordination with Obama’s political apparatus, Organizing for America
(OFA), and state & national union leaders to rally public sector
employees to protest at state capitals across the nation this month.
A Community Organizer is paid to foment resentment and class envy.
That’s how they gain power and influence. The Agitator-In-Chief
fueled the flames of union dissension, declaring limits on collective
bargaining rights an "assault on unions," encouraged mob rule across the
nation to negate the last elections, and directly violated the powers
reserved to the States in the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment.
Quoting Mark Jefferson, executive director of the Republican Party of
Wisconsin, in an RPW press release,
"To willfully prevent elected officials from
performing their official duties in order to circumvent the
legislative process flies in the face of democracy."
Obama has radical ideas about the relationship
between the federal and state governments. As head of the federal
government, he has no standing to organize or allocate resources to
interfere with a state’s contractual relationship, to openly encourage
an illegal strike by militant protestors to shut down a state
government, or interfere in any way with a state’s ability to conduct
its business. All are impeachable offenses. But as the
Heritage Foundation Morning Bell outlines, this is precisely what Obama
"President Barack Obama has federalized the
issue, throwing the full weight of the White House, the Democratic
National Committee, and his own Organizing for America operation
behind government unions, with the assistance of the SEIU and AFSCME
At no time in American history during a period of
non-war has a president’s violations of the Constitution and utter
disregard for the separation between state and federal rights been so
prevalent. Obama’s infringements range from ordering the
Department of Justice to partner with eleven countries to sue Arizona
for passing an immigration enforcement law to intimidating Oklahoma over
its English-only referendum, denying Texas federal monies if the state
refused to violate its own constitution, and forcing an unconstitutional
healthcare law down our collective throats. But his latest abuse
of power threatens to undermine democracy by emboldening mob rule
against any state government or legislature that threatens the Left’s
pot of gold.
The current trend in states re-evaluating their
collective bargaining agreements creates a life or death struggle for
the unions and the Democratic Party -- a threat to their criminal
partnership. Unions overwhelmingly support left-wing causes with
their financial war chests and Democrats, in return, funnel taxpayer
money back to the unions, robbing taxpayers and draining state
treasuries into a fiscal abyss. Between 1990 and 2010 unions spent
$734 million in campaign contributions, with $668 million going to the
Democratic Party. That’s 91% of all union political contributions!
In short, without labor unions and their millions pouring into DNC
coffers, there would be no Democratic Party.
The stakes are extremely high. The Left has
invested a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money into the
redistribution of private wealth and, like pigs at the trough, will not
rest until every dollar is sucked from the public coffers. Union
leaders are planning for battles and pouring resources into states
facing budget crises, setting aside $30m for upcoming campaigns across
the nation. Leftwing activists are instructing protestors on how
to use class warfare, and declaring their commitment to "breaking up
America." The perceived threat to Obama, the DNC and the unions is
inescapable as they define this as their signature issue for the 2012
elections. Democrats, union thugs, anarchists, socialists and
communists are uniting against their opponents to wage war throughout
the country in coming months using intimidation and threats of violence.
Wisconsin is ground zero in their battle and the reports of violent,
threatening, destructive, and uncivil behavior coming out of the state
indicate the Left is willing to turn the streets of America into Egypt.
CNS News reports,
"[Mark] Jefferson said that the signs that
they have seen both inside the Capitol building and in the streets
have led many to fear for the safety of the governor and Republican
supporters of the legislation."
"There is fear for Scott
Walker’s safety but also for that of the Republican legislators as
well. We’re very concerned when we see signs out there with
crosshairs over Scott Walker’s photo, when we see the disgusting
comparisons to Hitler. Right now there is a sign hanging in
the Senate wing of the Capitol with all of the photos of the entire
Senate Republican Caucus and it says 'Republican Senators Want to
Take Your Rights. Don’t Continue to Let Them Walk Through the
People’s House Unnoticed.'"
"Jefferson also said that he was
trying to confirm reports that union protesters were attempting to
figure out if there were escape routes that Republican legislators
might try and use to get away from the Capitol."
Michelle Malkin disclosed that the Wisconsin
Assembly was forced to abruptly adjourn their session because,
"Enough credible threats to the security of
the Assemblymen and their staff came into the Capitol Police to
cause them to tell the Assembly leadership that their safety could
no longer be assured."
Obama made his stand in support of Wisconsin’s
Egypt-like moment. In doing so he violated the boundary between
state and federal rights by allocating federal resources for the purpose
of preventing elected officials from performing their official duties
and interfering with a state’s ability to conduct its business.
Obama had full knowledge of the militant protestors' historical use of
threats and intimidation to achieve their goal. These are
impeachable offenses -- direct violations of the Constitution. A
sitting president continues to violate his oath of office, putting the
interests of his campaign supporters ahead of the interests of the
American people. What will prevent him from further abdication of
his constitutional duties?
"Government is instituted for the common
good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the
people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one
man, family, or class of men." ~ John Adams, 1776
Obama Flouts The Rule Of Law
The New York Post
asks, just what is it about the rule of law that Obama doesn't get?
The Justice Department announced Wednesday that it now believes
the federal Defense of Marriage Act -- which defines marriage as being a
legal union between one man and one woman -- is unconstitutional, and
said it will no longer defend the law in court.
So, just like
that, Obama & Co. effectively declare null a law duly passed by
Congress, signed by a previous president -- and presumptively binding on
the government until either the courts or Congress declare otherwise.
It's a breathtaking act of arrogance, a precedent so fraught
that it threatens one of the nation's bedrock founding principles: That
America was to be ruled by law, not by individuals.
have found particular laws vexatious for as long as there have been
presidents. Still, when Franklin Roosevelt decided he didn't like
legislation forced on him by Congress, he had sufficient respect for the
law itself to attempt to pack the Supreme Court with friendly justices.
He lost. He should have.
And it's not as if Obama,
et al., don't understand the basic issue: Last October, the
administration got it right in similar circumstances.
disagreeing with the "Don't ask, don't tell" law blocking gays from
serving openly in the military -- and despite objections from his
left-wing base -- Obama declared that he was obliged to follow and
defend the law. He added that he wanted DADT repealed by Congress
rather than by the courts -- which is exactly what happened two months
But now this.
It's hard to see anything other
than politics driving the announcement: Obama is pandering to his lefty
base, because the newly Republican House won't be doing away with DOMA
on its own. It's a dangerous game.
What happens if -- a
few years from now, should ObamaCare finally be fully installed as the
law of the land -- a different president deems that law unconstitutional
and refuses to defend it?
That president could just point to
Obama's DOMA precedent -- and would he be wrong? Precedent
matters, after all.
Not that Obama seems to care.
Related:Obama Not Just Above the Law;
He Is the Law
that conservatives are not
always the sharpest knives in the drawer. We right-wingers
sometimes have difficulty grasping the deep, elusive logic of
intellectual elitists on the left like Barack Obama when it comes to
great and serious questions concerning the U.S. Constitution.
example, we find it difficult to understand how it is that the man who
invented ObamaCare, which has been ruled unconstitutional by two
separate courts, feels qualified to unilaterally decide that the Defense
of Marriage Act, law of the land for 15 years, is suddenly
unconstitutional, thereby freeing himself from the responsibility to
defend said law in fulfillment of his Oath of Office.
to unreliable sources, it appears that Obama will make a major
announcement that will CHANGE everything in America.
The gist of
that announcement: The U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional because
women and racial, sexual preference, and religious minorities were all
under represented in 1776. Indeed, without any openly gay men or
transgender people involved in the crafting of the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all such
documents must be declared null and void. Other excluded
minorities include women, terrorists, and illegal aliens. Without
factoring in the wishes and needs of terrorists and illegal aliens how
in the world can our democracy function?
The answer, of course,
is that it cannot, which is why Obama will soon declare the Constitution
Of course, if Obama really gave a
tinker’s dam about the Constitution, he would scrap his outrageous law
suit against the state of Arizona for protecting its citizens from
He would move to scrap ObamaCare, which was rammed down
the throats of unwilling Americans with legislative sleight of hands and
bribery when the votes were not there to follow the rules.
would understand that forcing citizens to purchase health care
insurance, or face the ravages of the IRS, is barbaric and
He would understand that the Constitution is
very specific when it comes to the eligibility of any person to serve as
president. Thus, he would make every effort to be completely
honest and transparent with the American people concerning questions
about his own eligibility.
He would understand that the
Constitution sets forth provisions for separation of powers, meant to
assure that the Executive Branch is accountable to the people through
the oversight function performed by Congress.
He would understand
that installation of stealth Czars in order to circumvent Congressional
oversight is a repudiation of the Constitution.
understand that voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party is not
acceptable simply because the intimidated are not people of color.
He would understand that actions taken to grant rights reserved for
citizens to terrorists are anti-American acts of treason.
would understand that the Constitution requires the president to secure
our borders and enforce our immigration laws so as to protect the
He would understand that it is the president’s
Constitutional obligation to serve as America’s Commander-in-Chief,
which requires him to use war powers prudently to defend the American
people, rather than using those powers as political footballs.
Above all else, if he were genuine, Obama would understand that the will
of the people should be the first priority for any political entity
wishing to govern, and that that applies to taxes, illegal invasions,
health care, terrorists, and all major issues of the day.
fact is that Barack Obama views the Constitution as an impediment to his
Marxist agenda, and he MUST be stopped.
Obama Has Become The Law
Obama's brazenly calculated move to unilaterally abandon the federal
Defense of Marriage Act showcases his attitude that he is above the law.
DOMA defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one
woman as husband and wife" for purposes of all federal laws, rules and
regulations (Section 3). It specifies that no state shall be
required to honor laws of other states that treat same-sex relationships
as legal marriages -- effectively carving out an exception to the
Constitution's full faith and credit clause (Section 2).
passed this law by enormous majorities (Senate 85-14, House 342-67) in
response to political pressure in some states to redefine marriage,
especially a Hawaiian court's decision suggesting the Hawaii
Constitution conferred the right to same-sex marriage. Congress
was worried that, among other things, same-sex couples living in other
states might go to Hawaii to marry and demand that their home states
recognize their marriages.
It seems that in enacting this law,
the federal government was quite scrupulous in deferring to the
sovereignty of the states by pronouncing a federal standard for marriage
applicable to federal laws but not presuming to encroach on states'
authority to set their own standards. It affirmed the states'
prerogative by providing that their marriage laws would not be abrogated
or diminished by conflicting laws of other states, but did not preclude
them from honoring, if they so choose, laws of other states validating
During his presidential campaign, Obama
stated that he did not support same-sex marriage but that he did believe
that DOMA should be repealed. He gave no hint that he would take
it upon himself to issue a presidential edict, without a congressional
bill placed before him, forbidding the executive branch from enforcing
the law. But that is precisely what he did this week.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Obama had concluded that the
administration would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA. Holder
acknowledged that the Justice Department had previously defended DOMA in
court under a "rational basis standard." (It's interesting they
chose Section 3, because many legal scholars believe Section 2 is more
vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.) But he said Obama now
believes that "a more heightened standard of scrutiny" should be
required for laws involving same-sex marriage -- the same standard that
applies to "laws targeting minority groups with a history of
To understand the magnitude of Obama's action,
we must again consider the above-cited fact that both chambers of
Congress passed DOMA by overwhelming majorities reflecting the will of
the people that marriage be defined, for legal and policy purposes, as
it always had been. Also, no federal appellate court has ruled the
As he has in so many other areas (EPA,
the offshore drilling ban, IMF), Obama has usurped the authority of the
other two coequal branches of government to make himself, in effect, not
just chief executive but super-legislator and a supreme judicial
Holder admitted in his statement that the Justice
Department "has a longstanding practice of defending the
constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can
be made in their defense," but not otherwise.
But it is
preposterous to suggest there are no reasonable arguments to defend the
statute when 5,000 years of human history and the express act of
Congress fly in the face of that statement. According to professor
John Yoo, "in the few cases that the Supreme Court has heard gay rights
cases, it has never adopted (the standard Obama is applying)."
announcing a new standard, Obama claims that the legal landscape has
changed in the 15 years since DOMA was passed. You know the drill:
Society has "evolved." That's highly dubious in view of the fact
that even people in some liberal states have expressed their preference
for preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Further, it
is not Obama's place to make this determination, especially when the
people have already done so in such emphatic terms through their duly
elected congressmen. If the people want the law changed, they can
lobby their congressmen to change it or marshal their lawyers to argue
their position in actual cases before the courts.
In response to
leftists arguing that President George W. Bush also declined to enforce
a federal statute, Yoo says that Obama's action is distinguishable.
Bush did so in cases in which he was resisting congressional intrusions
into the executive's constitutional authorities in the area of national
security. Here there are no alleged encroachments on executive
authority; it's just that Obama has a different opinion than the
American people and has decided to implement it unilaterally.
now we have an imperial president who is refusing to enforce a law
passed by powerful congressional majorities while persisting in
enforcing a law (ObamaCare) that two federal courts have already
ruled unconstitutional. The only common denominator is that Obama believes he
is the law.
On December 20, 2007, during the presidential
campaign, the Boston Globe
a list of 12 questions to and answers from Barack Obama under the
title, "Barack Obama's Q&A." The second question put to Obama was:
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the
president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking
a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically,
what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a
situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President does not have power under the
Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a
situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent
threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President
does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In
instances of self-defense, the President would be within his
constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking
its consent. History has shown us time and again, however,
that military action is most successful when it is authorized and
supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable
to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military
As for the specific question about bombing suspected
nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in
part that "any offensive military action taken by the United States
against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress." The
recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a
nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no
longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us
time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed
at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
offensive military action taken by the United States against Libya WAS
NOT explicitly authorized by Congress. It was authorized by the
United Nations. The elected representatives of the American People
had no say in the matter.
Obama acted on his own authority -- an
authority he does not have, and which he affirms by his own statement
One World Government Obama
says maybe I missed something, but wasn't that The Constitution of
the United States of America that we just laid to rest this weekend?
It was buried in a private ceremony by Mr. Barack Obama of Chicago
as he silently signed America on to the One World Government some of us
have been worried about for decades.
Look at it this way: Where
did Mr. Obama get the authority to commit United States forces to war in
Libya? There was no declaration of war. There was no
authorizing resolution by Congress allowing money to be spent on a war
against Col. Gaddafi. As far as I know, there was no meeting of
Mr. Obama and top leaders of Congress to discuss the subject in even
rough form, let alone detail. There was no lengthy buildup in
which the Congress was "allowed" to express the people's opinion on
whether we want to be in a third concurrent war.
There was just a
vote by the United Nations Security Council, a very far from unanimous
vote, and suddenly, Obama's Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Rodham
Clinton, solemnly announced that we were at war.
But, when did we
amend the Constitution to declare that the United Nations had control
over our military? When did we abolish the part of the
Constitution that said Congress had the right to declare war? Now,
I well know that in recent postwar conflicts, we don't have declarations
of war. But we have Congressional debates. We have funding
votes. We have a sense of the Congress or some kind of resolution.
This time, zip. Nada. Nothing. Just France and the
U.K. and Norway saying that it's time to go to war, and off America goes
to war. And off Mr. and Mrs. Obama go to a South American "fact
finding" trip for the POTUS and a fun sightseeing junket for the Obama
(I wonder if there has ever before in history been a
national leader who sent his country to war -- and the same day went off
on vacation. Has that ever happened before? )
missing here. Libya and Col. Gaddafi were and are no threat to the
United States. It is sad and cruel that the Gaddafi regime was
murdering its own civilians, but so do many governments all across the
world, including North Korea, Iran, the Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, and Cuba.
Are we going to war with all of them, now?
Meanwhile, again, what
the heck happened to the Constitution? Is this Mr. Obama's legacy
to our children? The junking of the Constitution in the middle of
the night and the turnover of our sovereignty to the United Nations?
(By the way, this is the same UN where Libya until recently sat on the
Commission on Human Rights.) Why aren't any questions being asked?
Is the Constitution that meaningless to us? Are we that pitiful
now? Are we willing to toss overboard the Constitution for the
writ of the United Nations? I guess so. Sad days.
Obama’s Unilateral Choice
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett
says Obama’s unilateral choice to order U.S. military force against
Qadhafi is an affront to Our Constitution.
Bartlett released the following statement today concerning the situation
in Libya. Congressman Bartlett represents Maryland’s Sixth
District and he is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and
Land Forces of the House Armed Services Committee.
"The United States does not have a King's army.
President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in
Libya is an affront to our Constitution. President Obama's
administration has repeated the mistakes of the Clinton
administration concerning bombing in Kosovo and the George W. Bush
administration concerning invading Iraq by failing to request and
obtain from the U.S. Congress unambiguous prior authorization to use
military force against a country that has not attacked U.S.
territory, the U.S. military or U.S. citizens. This is
particularly ironic considering then-Senator Obama campaigned for
the Democratic nomination based upon his opposition to President
George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq."
is a tyrant despised throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
His brutal and merciless attacks against his own citizens are
horrific. It is self-evident that the tragic situation in
Libya is not an emergency since the Obama administration sought and
obtained support from both the Arab League and the United Nations
Security Council to authorize military force against Qadhafi.
The Obama administration also had time to organize a 22-nation
coalition to implement a no-fly zone with military attacks led by
U.S. Armed Forces against Qadhafi’s forces. Nonetheless, the
Obama administration failed to seek approval from the American
people and their elected legislators in the Congress. Failing
to obtain authorization from the U.S. Congress means that President
Obama has taken sole responsibility for the outcome of using U.S.
military forces against Qadhafi onto his shoulders and his
The War Powers
(Resolution) Act is found as 50 USC S.1541-1548, passed in 1973 over
the veto of President Nixon. It's supposed to be the mechanism by
which the president may use US Armed Forces. It purports to spell
out the situations under which he may deploy the Forces with and without
a Congressional declaration of war.
The particularly relevant
portion is S.1541(c), which reads:
(c) Presidential Executive
Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation: The constitutional powers of
the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed
Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement
in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised
only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory
authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the
United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
None of those situations exist in Libya.
Amateur Hour At The White House
Jeffrey T. Kuhner says Obama has lost his
legitimacy to remain in office. The Libyan war has exposed the
administration's lawlessness and rampant criminality. If
Republicans and conservatives are serious about restoring constitutional
government, they will demand that Obama be impeached.
The war is
going badly. The coalition is cracking; the strategic aims of the
military intervention are not clear; Russia, China, India and Brazil
oppose it; the Arab League is condemning the deaths of innocent Libyans
caused by Operation Odyssey Dawn; and it appears that Moammar Gadhafi
will succeed in clinging to power -- defying the international community
and humiliating the United States. Obama has called for Col.
Gadhafi to step down. He has staked American prestige and power on
helping bring about that end. The failure to achieve this will
render America a paper tiger on the world stage. We will no longer
be feared or respected.
NATO forces launched air strikes in order
to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. The goal: to prevent Col.
Gadhafi's forces from slaughtering civilians. As Gadhafi loyalists
marched toward the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Obama decided to
implement an American rescue mission. This mission, however,
differs from previous ones in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo. The
United States is not taking the lead; rather, it is following the French
and British. America is no longer acting like a superpower but a
poodle of Paris and London.
Obama has engaged U.S. forces --
risking precious blood and treasure -- without a clear strategy for
victory. He recklessly has allowed his country to be sucked into a
conflict without a real national debate or consensus. His policy
is shoddy, half-baked and irresponsible. It is amateur hour at the
The most disturbing aspect, however, is the
intervention's lack of constitutional and legal authority. It is
an illegal war. The Constitution clearly stipulates that only
Congress can authorize the use of military force -- unless American
territory has been invaded, is under imminent threat, or U.S. citizens
have been directly attacked, the president must first ask for
congressional approval before ordering any kind of military action.
To do otherwise is to behave like a despot.
That is why the
Founding Fathers insisted that going to war could be sanctioned only by
the people's representatives. The most serious act of any state is
to use military force -- to demand that countrymen risk their lives on
behalf of their nation. Hence, congressional input and approval is
necessary as a fundamental check and balance against an imperial
Obama claims he does not need congressional authority.
His behavior reflects contempt for the rule of law and American
democracy. His arbitrary will trumps legal restraints.
Unless he is stopped and removed from office, we are a constitutional
republic in name only.
His blatant abuse of power is illegal,
immoral and hypocritical. During the war in Iraq, then-Sen. Barack Obama
criticized President George W. Bush for not asking Congress for a formal
declaration of war. On Dec. 20, 2007, Obama said in a speech that
the "president does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Jonathan Allen and Meredith Shiner say Barack
Obama’s foreign policy "A" team -- led by Cabinet secretaries Hillary
Clinton and Robert Gates -- failed to quiet criticism of U.S. military
action in Libya Wednesday during a pair of classified briefings on
More than anything, the meetings served to
underscore how little influence Congress has in shaping the war.
Lawmakers said they weren’t told much by Secretary of State Clinton,
Secretary of Defense Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen or
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that they couldn’t read
in the newspaper or see on television.
They said one dynamic was
very clear: The administration doesn’t much care what Congress thinks
about the actions it’s taken so far.
Challenged on whether Obama
overstepped his constitutional authority in attacking Libya without
congressional approval, Clinton told lawmakers that White House lawyers
were OK with it and that Obama has no plans to seek an endorsement from
And, as if to add insult to injury, news broke during
the House briefing that Obama had already signed an order authorizing
covert action in support of the rebels. When asked about it after
the first briefing, House members were unaware Obama had taken that
"I have no knowledge of what he signed," said Maryland
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence
The Attack On Libya Crossed A Very Bright
Rep. Tom McClintock (R–CA)
says that when Obama ordered the attack on Libya without
Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional
line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe
"Obama does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally
authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve
stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
the American Founders reserved the question of war to Congress was that
they wanted to assure that so momentous a decision could not be made by
a single individual. They had watched European kings plunge their
nations into bloody and debilitating wars and wanted to avoid that fate
for the American Republic.
The most fatal and consequential
decision a nation can make is to go to war, and the American Founders
wanted that decision made by all the representatives of the people after
careful deliberation. Only when Congress has made that fateful
decision does it fall to Obama as Commander in Chief to command our
armed forces in that war.
The authors of the Constitution were
explicit on this point. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton drew a
sharp distinction between the American President’s authority as
Commander in Chief, which he said "would amount to nothing more than the
supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces" and that
of the British king who could actually declare war.
that Obama has the legal authority to commit an act of war without
Congressional approval requires ignoring every word the Constitution’s
authors said on this subject -- and they said quite a lot.
seems to be a widespread misconception that under the War Powers Act,
Obama may order any attack on any country he wants for 60 days without
Congressional approval. This is completely false. The War
Powers Act is clear and unambiguous: Obama may only order our armed
forces into hostilities under three very specific conditions: (quoting
directly from the Act): "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific
statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack
upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed
Only if one of these conditions is present can Obama
invoke the War Powers Act. None are present or alleged to be
present, and thus Obama is in direct violation of that Act.
United Nations Participation Act requires specific congressional
authorization before American forces are ordered into hostilities in
United Nations actions. The North Atlantic Treaty clearly requires
troops under NATO command to be deployed in accordance with their
country’s constitutional provisions. The War Powers Act
specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order
American forces into hostilities without specific congressional
The only conclusion we can make is that this was
an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance.
Obama has implied that he didn’t have time for Congressional
authorization to avert a humanitarian disaster in Libya. He had
plenty of time to get a resolution from the United Nations. I
would remind him that just a day after the unprovoked bombing of Pearl
Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt appeared in this very chamber to request and
receive congressional authorization.
Some have said that Obama
can do whatever he wishes and that Congress’s authority is limited to
cutting off funds. War is not a one-sided act that can be turned
on and off with Congressional funding. Once any nation commits an
act of war against another, from that moment it is AT WAR --
inextricably embroiled and entangled with an aggrieved and belligerent
party that has casus belli to prosecute hostilities regardless of what
Congress then decides.
Finally, I’ve heard it said, "we did the
same thing in Kosovo." If that is the case, then shame on the
Congress that tolerated it. And shame on us if we allow this act
to stand unchallenged any longer.
This matter strikes at the
heart of the Constitution. If this act is allowed to stand, it
will fundamentally change the entire character of the legislative and
executive functions on the most momentous decision a nation can make and
take us down a dark and bloody road the American Founders fought so hard
DoJ: Obama Can Send U.S. Troops To Do The
UN's Bidding By Decree
The Justice Department has decided: it is
perfectly acceptable for Obama to send American troops into foreign
military adventures without so much as consulting Congress, as long as
he is carrying out the will of the United Nations.
Barack Obama's speech on the budget on Wednesday, the White House
revealed that American jets have continued to bomb Libya, after giving
the impression this would end. Since the "hand-off," U.S. troops
have operated under NATO command. And some figures are beginning
to catch on that there is no evidence the Libyan intervention prevented
With the evidence piling up, the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) weighed in on Obama's war-by-decree in
Libya. Although figures as diverse as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich
have declared the military adventure is grounds for impeachment, the OLC
found that Obama acted within his "constitutional authority."
James M. Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations mentioned the
report on the CFR's blog last Friday. The OLC's opinion states:
As we advised you prior to the commencement
of military operations, we believe that, under these circumstances,
the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief
and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to
direct such limited military operations abroad, even without prior
specific congressional approval.
It states "a variety or national interests…alone or
in combination, may justify use of military force by a President."
Among them is "maintaining the credibility of United Nations Security
Council mandates" or "enforcing UNSC mandates," citing such national
mistakes as Haiti, Bosnia, and Somalia. Libya involved "the
combinations of at least two national interests…preserving regional
stability and supporting the UNSC's credibility and effectiveness," and
this "provided a sufficient basis for the President's [sic. --
government entities always capitalize their titles as though they were
Oriental deities] exercise of his constitutional authority to to order
the use of military force."
This means two things: 1) Barack
Obama had time to consult with the OLC, as well as the Arab League,
NATO, and the United Nations Security Council before war, but not
Congress; and 2) the OLC could not care less about the Founding Fathers'
interpretation of our founding document.
Indeed, the OLC says as
much in its opinion. Obama's top legal advisers state their
"understanding of the President's constitutional authority reflects not
only the express assignment of powers and responsibilities to the
President and congress in the Constitution, but also, as noted, the
'historical gloss' placed on the Constitution by two centuries of
Under this scheme, violations of the Constitution
become as important as the words of the Constitution.
The Washington Examiner
says, "The auto rescue succeeded in no small part because we did not
have to deal with Congress," writes Steve Rattner, Obama's former car
czar. Had Congress exercised its constitutional duty of authorizing and
overseeing the bailout, Rattner adds, "we would have been subject to
endless congressional posturing, deliberating, bickering, and
micromanagement. ..." This excerpt from Rattner's book "Overhaul"
expresses what appears to be the Obama administration's deep impatience
with the carefully designed deliberative processes of our constitutional
republic. Concerning Congress and the U.S. role in Libya, however,
Obama's attitude seems to be passing from impatience to contempt. It is
all the more upsetting because, as our own Timothy P. Carney notes in
these pages today, Obama ran against precisely the sort of imperial
presidency he is now running.
When he began his "kinetic military
action" in Libya, without any serious debate or consultation with our
country's elected representatives, Obama justified himself by invoking
the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Under its loosest possible
interpretation, that law gives a wartime president a 60-day grace period
before he must seek congressional authorization to continue. Those 60
days ended Friday, as several members of Congress reminded Obama in a
letter last week. His response to that letter, which Obama's
communications staff deliberately buried in the Friday afternoon news
dump, demonstrated that he wants to have it both ways. He was happy to
take advantage of the purported 60-day grace period -- which may itself
be too permissive to meet constitutional muster -- but he is not so keen
on obeying the same law's requirement to obtain authorization from
Congress for further involvement.
Obama argued in his letter that
the Libyan action, in which the United States continues to participate
in bombing raids, is sufficiently nonkinetic as to obviate the need for
congressional approval. Under Obama's theory, presidents can start and
wage low-intensity conflicts indefinitely without any approval from
Congress, despite the Constitution's clear position that only Congress
can commit this nation to war. We are not alone in recognizing this
inconsistency. Last week, liberal Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif.,
complained that Obama is "shredding the Constitution" with his refusal
to submit to congressional authority. He told CNN: "When a president
defiantly violates the law, that really undercuts our effort to urge
other countries to have the rule of law." It is a sad statement that
Turkey, whose parliament authorized its involvement in Libya, is in that
respect a shining example of democracy in comparison with the U.S.
It is Congress' prerogative to debate the merits of the Libyan
intervention. And were Obama to seek Congress' approval, he might even
receive it. But his refusal to ask evinces a dangerous and arrogant
lawlessness. Perhaps Obama thinks he is Rambo after the successful
American mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Perhaps he thinks he is
still in Chicago, where elected officials routinely flout the law
without consequence. Whatever his delusion, it is time for Obama to
snap out of it and obey the law.
Scott at PowerLine
note of Caroline Glick's Jerusalem Post column on Prime Minister
Netanyahu's close encounter with Obama last week, we find this condensed
account of the challenge raised by Obama's leadership style:
Obama's leadership model is the model of
subversive leadership. Subversive leaders in democracies do
not tell their citizens where they wish to lead their societies.
They hide their goals from their citizens, because they understand
that their citizens do not share their goals. Then once they
achieve their unspoken goals, they present their people with a fait
accompli and announce that only they are competent to shepherd their
societies through the radical shift they undertook behind the
Several examples spring to mind, but for the moment
let us just note that this explains a lot.
Bipartisan Congress Rebuffs Obama On Libya
Stephen Dinan is reporting that the vast
majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling Obama he has
broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops
to the international military mission in Libya.
In two votes --
on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures --
Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether Obama
ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S.
troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.
The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but
taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Obama
on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences,
possibly including having funds for the war cut off.
"He has a
chance to get this right. If he doesn’t, Congress will exercise
its constitutional authority and make it right," said House Speaker John
A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who wrote the resolution that passed,
268-145, and sets a two-week deadline for Obama to deliver the
information the House is seeking.
Minutes after approving
Boehner’s measure, the House defeated an even more strongly-worded
resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, that would
have insisted Obama begin a withdrawal of troops.
said that was too rash at this point, and said they wanted to give him
time to comply. Some also said immediate withdrawal would leave
U.S. allies in the lurch.
The Kucinich resolution failed 148-265.
In a telling signal, 87 Republicans voted for the Kucinich resolution --
more than the 61 Democrats that did.
Still, taken together, 324
members of Congress voted for one resolution or both resolutions,
including 91 Democrats, or nearly half the caucus. The size of the
votes signals overwhelming discontent with Obama’s handling of the
constitutional issues surrounding the Libya fight.